Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

98 Sections
S to R. Relating the reported event to the moment of speaking is the basic operation. Relating
the reported event to reference times which have to be related to the time of speaking is a much
more complex and non-basic operation. Despite the typological differences between the three
languages, Bulgarian, Russian and German, we can show that the investigated children interpret
the first formal oppositions in the verbal system as representing aspectual distinctions, i.e., as
symbolizing differences in the relation of the event and the time of speaking. Formal
distinctions which exclusively differentiate distinct times of reference without changing the
perception of the reported event emerge after this step in grammatical development.
Antinucci, F. & R. Miller (1976). How children talk about what happened. Journal of Child
Language 3: 167-189.
From Newglish to Offglish:
The system behind morphological oddities
Hamans, Camiel
Dutch delegation of the PSE Group in the European Parliament, Brussels -Strasbourg
hamans@tiscali.nl;chamans@europarl.eu.int
Traditionally morphology deals with complex words, 'words which are not simple signs, but
which are made up of more elementary ones' (Aronoff 1976). Although 'portmanteau' words
such as smog, snark or chunnel are derived from other forms - 'smoke + fog, 'snake + shark'
and 'channel + tunnel' - Aronoff does not include the pattern of word formation in his theory
of morphology. These products of blending processes are just 'oddities'. Bauer(1983), Scalise
(1984), Spencer (1991) and Rainer (1993) share the same view.
In the work of Suzanne Kemmer (for instance Kemmer 2000) blends play a more central role.
She considers 'lexical blends, such as glitterati, stalkerazzi, imagineer and carjacking, as
instances of one of the most vivid and creative word formation processes in English'.
However, she realizes how problematic blends are for rule-based theories of morphology.
Therefore she describes the process of blending within usage-based network theories.
In this paper I want to show how systematic and especially productive these morphological
processes are. Therefore we have to include blending and other ‘odd’ processes, such as
clipping, in a theory of grammar.
I shall start with examples such as:
(1) brunch breakfast + lunch
flumpet Flügelhorn + trumpet
The process under (1) is not very productive and at first sight not really systematic, just as in
examples such as:
(2) governator governor + terminator
Nescafé Nestlé + café
Nespresso Nestlé + espresso
On the other hand, examples as the ones under (3) suggests morphological boundaries might
play a role in the formation of portmanteau words:
(3) Oxbridge Oxford + Cambridge
stagflation stagnation + inflation
infotainment information + entertainment